Re: Why do Americans not travel more internationally ?

In article <3tkm6fFt5decU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PTRAVEL
<ptravel88-usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Go Fig" <gofig@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:111120051342035560%gofig@xxxxxxxxxx
> > In article <3tk6uuFt23ciU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PTRAVEL
> > <ptravel88-usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > "RJ" <rj_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:kum9n1t5n5n9gtsev2t8a1ks38dpars55d@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:27:06 -0800, "PTRAVEL"
> > > > <ptravel88-usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Nile" <Eb_the_farmhand@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > >news:4109-43741FE1-262@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >> PTRAVEL fumed:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >>>People like me, i.e. educated, well-traveled, well-informed,
> > > > >> Blue-state dwelling centrists, have as much in common with
> > > > >> bible-thumping, ignorant, right-wing Texophilic wannabe-theocrats
> as we
> > > > >> have fanatical Muslim terrorists (who are only slightly less
> dangerous,
> > > > >> in my opinion).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Centrist. Like you. Right.
> > > > >
> > > > >Yep. Centrist.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Leftist.
> > >
> > > I'm not a socialist or a communist, so I'm not a leftist. I'm opposed
> to
> > > attempts to violate the Constitution by, for example, embuing religious
> > > beliefs with the force of law,
> >
> >
> > Your conspicuous absents of specifics is very telling... moreover, when
> > confronted with specific challenges... you are silent...
>
> What specifics would you like?

How has the "religious beliefs" manifested itself in current case law
or even legislative law ?

>
> What are the "challenges" with which I've been confronted?
>
>
> >Michael
> > Kinsley is about as 'leftist' as you can get... he was the Editor of
> > the Los Angeles Times Editorial section... till he was fired for not
> > remotely allowing other side(s) to be expressed.
>
> I'm not familiar with him, but I'll take your word for it. So the LA Times
> did what was appropriate and fired him for being one sided. Why is that a
> problem?
>
> >
> >
> > Who violated the Constitution in the case is Kelo v. City of New
> > London... the 5 Justices who said private property could be stolen from
> > one party to benefit another PRIVATE party or the 4 who stood by the
> > Constitution and more than 200 years of legal precedence ?
>
> I absolutely agree with you.

OK, but in the decision it was the classic 5-4 split, with the liberals
prevailing.

How about the CA Medical Marijuana case, what right does the Fed have
telling the people of the State of California what is correct for it's
citizens. Justice Steven's had to pull out the old standby... The
Commerce Clause... suggesting that someone would get pot in CA and then
sell it in AZ... good grief!

Does not seem to me that your standard could be "violating the
Constitution" as a political philosophy.

jay
Fri Nov 11, 2005
mailto:gofig@xxxxxxx


> I think the case flies in the face of the 5th
> and 14th Amendments and is unconscionable.
>
> What's your point?
>
> >
> > jay
> > Fri Nov 11, 2005
> > mailto:gofig@xxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > > and other such abuses that have been embarked
> > > upon by the right wing. That makes me a centrist.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > RJ
> > >
> > >
>
>
.